Valérie Aubourg 

Catholic Charismatic Renewal



1967:  The Catholic Charismatic Renewal (CCR) was founded.

1967–1980s (early):  Protestant expansion and acculturation took place.

1975 (May 18-19):  The first world Charismatic Renewal gathering took place in the presence of Pope Paul VI in St Peter’s Square, Rome.

1978:  The International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services (ICCRS) was founded.

1980s-1990s:  The Catholic Charismatic Renewal integrated within the Catholic matrix.

1981:  The International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Offices (ICCRO) were created.

1998 (May 27-29):  The founders and leaders of fifty-seven ecclesial movements and new communities met with Pope John Paul II in St Peter’s Square, Rome.

1990s (late)-2020:  Rapprochement with neo-Pentecostals was achieved.

2000s:  Evangelical and Pentecostal elements were introduced into the wider Catholicism, going beyond the Charismatic Renewal in the strict sense of the term.

2017 (June 3):  A CCR gathering celebrated its fiftieth anniversary in the presence of Pope Francis in Circus Maximus, Rome.

2018:  The Catholic Charismatic Renewal International Service (CHARIS) was founded.


The Charismatic Renewal was born in January 1967 when four lay teachers from Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, experienced baptism in the Holy Spirit in a group of Episcopalian Pentecostals. Their experience quickly spread outside student circles and the United States, giving rise to a multitude of Catholic assemblies gathering to pray “the Pentecostal way.” In less than ten years, the movement became established on all continents: in 1969 thirteen countries hosted charismatic prayer groups, and by 1975,  ninety-three countries were involved. In Africa it was so successful that the anthropologist and Jesuit Meinrad Hebga spoke of a “veritable tidal wave” (Hebga 1995:67).

Currently the Charismatic Renewal comprises 19,000,000, representing around ten percent of all Catholics (Barrett and Johnson 2006). The movement has 148,000 prayer groups in 238 countries. Group sizes vary from two to one thousand participants. These groups bring together 13,400,000 people every week. 10,600 priests and 450 bishops around the world are charismatic. But the Charismatic Renewal is mainly a lay movement. After an initial exponential growth (more than twenty percent per year until the 1980s), the advance of the Catholic charismatic movement slowed down considerably. It has nevertheless continued at a rate of 2.7 percent per year since the beginning of the twenty-first century (Barrett and Johnson 2006). It is in the South that growth is currently at its highest, where the charismatic movement particularly resonates with traditional cultures (Aubourg 2014a; Bouchard 2010; Massé 2014; Hoenes del Pinal 2017) while encouraging the rise of leaders such as the Congolese Mama Régine (Fabian 2015), the Cameroonian Meinrad Hebga (Lado 2017), the Beninese Jean Pliya, the Indian James Manjackal, etc.

Four phases can be distinguished in the development of the Charismatic Renewal. The first corresponds to the years of its emergence (1972-1982) during which the Pentecostal experience entered Catholicism. Both sides of the Atlantic saw what the Canadians Pauline Côté and Jacques Zylberberg (1990) called “a Protestant expansion and acculturation.” All over the world prayer groups were formed, some of which gave rise to so-called “new” communities (Landron 2004). These include The Word of God  in the United States (1969); Sodalitium Vita Christianae in Peru (1969); Canção Nova (1978) and Shalom (1982) in Brazil; Emmanuel (1972), Théophanie (1972), Chemin Neuf (1973), Rocher (1975), Pain de vie (1976), and Puits de Jacob (1977) in France; etc. Prayer groups and communities regularly organized large common gatherings conducive to ecumenical relations. It is worth pointing out that links were established not only between Catholic charismatics and Pentecostals, but also with Lutheran and Reformed circles caught up in the “charismatic wave” (Veldhuizen 1995:40).

The initial opening up to Pentecostalism was followed by a phase of withdrawal during which the Charismatic Renewal refocused on its Catholic identity (1982-1997). The Roman institution took care to control it by strengthening its affiliation to the church community as a whole. It sought to contain its effervescence by normalizing its rites and practices. The Renewal also took root within the Catholic matrix out of a conscious desire on the part of the movement itself. Having initially represented an “implicit protest” (Seguy 1979) against the Roman institution, it then made a number of pledges: to use emblematic figures (saints, mystics, popes), reappropriate the history of church tradition, and revive practices that were no longer in use (adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, individual confessions, pilgrimages, Marian devotion, etc.). As expressed by Michel de Certeau, in the Catholic charismatic movements “charisma becomes part of the institution it both upholds and wraps itself in” (De Certeau 1976:12). In some dioceses the Renewal found itself under leaders who imposed prudence and reserve with regard to charismatic expressions. This led to a very clericalized Renewal, which gradually lost its vigor. Emotional expressions became less exuberant. The idea of conversion associated with baptism in the Holy Spirit was euphemized.  Groups such as the Emmanuel community replaced it with the term “outpouring of the Spirit” in order to distance themselves from the experience lived in Protestant circles and diminish its importance in relation to the sacrament of baptism. There were fewer, less spectacular healings. Prayer meetings were conducted in an increasingly repetitive way, becoming veritable paraliturgical assemblies. The regulation of the Renewal eventually led to what sociologist Max Weber describes as the “routinization of charisma” and the “Catholic resocialization of emotions” (Cohen 2001), which was coupled with a decrease in its attractiveness among young people and especially in Western countries. 

The third period is that of rapprochement with the neo-Pentecostals in an effort to revive the Renewal (since 1997). As prayer groups were running out of steam, steps were taken to rekindle the charismatic emotion. They took the form of training courses, prayer meetings, evangelization days, individualized welcome cells, and large gatherings. All these initiatives mobilized elements of the third neo-Pentecostal wave which is characterized by its encouragement of extraordinary divine manifestations under the effect of “Power Evangelism.” The phenomenon spread thanks to specialized preachers who operated within interfaith and international networks and sparked a new religious effervescence that the church institution tried very hard to control.

The fourth so-called “post-charismatic” phase began in the early 2000s.  It corresponds to the introduction of evangelical and Pentecostal elements into Catholicism, going beyond the Charismatic Renewal in the strict sense of the term (Aubourg 2020). This introduction could happen “quietly,” in a capillary fashion, without the faithful necessarily being aware of it, using music (e.g. the pop rock songs of the Australian megachurch Hillsong), books (e.g. The Purpose Driven Church by Californian pastor Rick Warren), discursive practices (e.g. real-life testimony), body techniques (e.g. the prayer of the brothers), objects (e.g. the baptistery for adults), and so on. Prayer groups were also created which were linked to the Charismatic Renewal but did not see themselves as belonging to it, their members coming from a wider range of categories than just Catholic charismatics. This was the case of the Mother’s Prayer groups founded by the Englishwoman Veronica Williams which are now present in ninety-five countries. So-called “missionary” parishes also took their inspiration from evangelical megachurches fully consciously but without being affiliated to the Charismatic Renewal. In doing so, Catholicism borrowed powerful tools from evangelical churches in order to revitalize Catholic practice and slow down the rising curve of religious disaffiliation. In this process of borrowing from the evangelical and Pentecostal world it is worth noting the importance of one particular approach: the Alpha Courses (Rigou Chemin 2011; Labarbe, 2007; Stout and Dein 2013). This evangelizing tool, which is characterized by the conviviality it tries to foster and its well-honed logistical organization, is similar to Pentecostalism in that it focuses its message on developing a personal relationship with Christ, reading the Bible, and “acquiring” the Holy Spirit. Having started in the London Anglican parish of Holy Trinity Brampton (HTB) in 1977, its success has spread throughout the world and in different Christian communities. It has played a key role at three levels: disseminating evangelical practices and tools in the Catholic world, building an international interfaith network of leaders, and implementing a new parish organization model.


“A child of Pentecostalism” in the words of Christine Pina (2001:26), the charismatic movement was initially very directly linked to this branch of evangelical Protestantism since it focused first of all on the practice of charisms: glossolalia (Aubourg 2014b), prophecy (McGuire 1977), healing (Csordas 1983; Charuty 1990; Ugeux 2002). It then emphasized the centrality of the biblical text, conversion (or reconversion), and the explicit proclamation of the kerygma (a message centered on “Jesus Christ having died on the cross for the salvation of humankind”).  Moreover, in the wake of Pentecostalism, the charismatic movement revived the confession of the existence of Satan and his demonic manifestations. It dealt with requests for exorcisms and presented itself as a means to fight against threats of witchcraft (Sagne 1994).

However, from the outset the connection with Pentecostalism raised questions, and Catholics were not content to simply copy its ways. The church institution took care to channel them by setting aside certain elements, such as the insistence on apocalyptic discourse, in favor of others such as respect for hierarchical and governing bodies.


The Charismatic Renewal includes many diverse individuals from all over the world who occasionally take part in various groups and activities: prayer assemblies, conferences, conventions, spiritual retreats, evangelization schools, publishing houses, new communities, etc. However, the Catholic charismatic landscape is organized around two main types of religious groups: communities and prayer groups (Vetö 2012). [Image at right]

Prayer groups do not require intensive commitment from their members and tend to blend in with local church life. Even though their audience is fluid and mobile, prayer groups nevertheless have made an effort at structuring themselves by setting up national coordinating bodies. Prayer groups are led by a shepherd surrounded by a core. In the vast majority of cases, these are lay individuals elected by the other group members. Like Pentecostal assemblies, prayer groups started by Catholics encourage new forms of warm, close-knit sociability. Charismatic prayer puts a lot of emphasis on religious emotions, real-life testimonies, and free expressions of faith. The body plays a central role through rhythmic songs, dances, and numerous gestures and postures such as clapping hands or raising arms.

While spontaneity is the essential feature of charismatic prayer, the latter nevertheless follows a pattern that is repeated every week: the session begins with prayers of praise followed by one or more biblical readings. It ends with collective prayers of intercession and the laying of hands on those individual participants who wish it. Hymns and charismatic manifestations punctuate the meetings (Parasie 2005).

Communities are more visible and better organized than prayer groups. They assert their specific features in relation to each other. Competitive relationships develop among them but also in relation to autonomous prayer groups. Some offer an intense communal life (such as The Word of God in the United States, Béatitudes and Pain de Vie in France) while others (such as Emmanuel) offer a less restrictive way of life. Two processes are at work in these religious groups, which Thomas Csordas describes in terms of “ritualization and radicalization of charisma” (Csordas 2012:100-30). From an administrative point of view they have led to the acquisition of canonical statutes (religious institutes; private or public associations of worshippers governed by diocesan or pontifical law). These communities offer new ways of living together since some are mixed (men and women / priests and lay people / Catholics and Protestants) while others welcome married couples with their children. Most of them encourage their members to wear distinctive clothing or signs: specific shape and color of clothing, stylized cross worn around the neck, sandals, etc. Having gradually taken their place within the Church, the new communities are today entrusted with parishes, abbeys, and ecclesial responsibilities (Dolbeau 2019).

Apart from Pentecostal practices and beliefs, most communities emerging from the Charismatic Renewal have adopted a rigorous orthopraxy, which is characteristic of evangelical milieux. These include strict condemnation of behavior deemed immoral, such as adultery; prohibition of the use of tobacco; mistrust of music, and in particular rock music; prohibition of gambling; and condemnation of yoga, divinatory astrology, or spiritualism (there is, however, a gradation between communities that strongly condemn such practices and those that are less critical of them). Over and above the strictly religious sphere, the changes brought by the experience of being baptized in the Holy Spirit are meant to affect the whole life of a converted Catholic, from their social relations to their daily attitude and representation of society. This ethical dimension also affects gender relations.


After first calling itself “Catholic Pentecostalism,” “neo-Pentecostalism,” or “the Pentecostal movement in the Catholic Church” (O’Connor 1975:18), the charismatic movement came to be referred to as the “Charismatic Renewal.” Very often it is simply called the “Renewal.” Its name aside, there is an ongoing debate between scholars, such as Thomas Csordas, who believe that the Catholic Charismatic Renewal could be characterized as a movement (in the sociological sense of the term), and the leaders of this religious grouping, who refuse to be associated with this theoretical category (Csordas 2012:43).

Initially, the Roman Catholic Church viewed this “Renewal” in a largely skeptical, even negative light. It was deemed uncontrollable and its innovations seemed potentially destabilizing for the institutional system. The movement was also discredited because of its tendency towards an emotional Christianity that seemed to devalue engagement in society and of the perceived arrogant attitude of these newconverts who presented themselves as “the future of the Church.” On May 18 and 19, 1975, on the feast of Pentecost, 12,000 people from over sixty countries took part in the 3rd International Congress of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal held in Rome. [Image at right] Pope Paul VI asked them this question, which would go down in the annals of the Renewal: “How could this Renewal not be an opportunity for the Church and for the world? And how, in this case, could one not take all steps necessary to ensure that it remains so?” By calling the Renewal an “opportunity,” the Pope not only gave the charismatic movement the legitimacy it had hoped for, he also encouraged the development of this “new spring for the Church.” Nevertheless, this support for the Charismatic Renewal has, since 1974, been accompanied by an ecclesial control closely interwoven with the endogenous structuring of the Charismatic Renewal. A series of documents were produced with the aim of regulating charismatic practice, such as those written by Léon-Joseph Suenens, Cardinal of Mechelen-Brussels. Subsequent popes have continued to support the Charismatic Renewal whilst constantly enjoining it to safeguard its Catholic identity. [Image at right]

At an international level, whilst refusing to set up an international governing structure, the Charismatic Renewal did acquire a world coordination office, which in 1981 became known as ICCRO (International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Offices). Originally based in Ann Arbor where Ralph Martin was in charge of a liaison and information bulletin, in 1975 the office was transferred to the bishopric of Mechelen-Brussels, and in 1982 to Rome, in the building that housed the Pontifical Council for the Laity (to be replaced by a dicastery in 2016). The latter recognized it in 1983 (as a private association of worshippers endowed with legal status). The organization was renamed ICCRS (International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services), its aim being to promote relations between Catholic charismatic entities as well as liaise with the Holy See. In 2018, CHARIS (Catholic Charismatic Renewal International Service) replaced ICCRS. It presents itself as “a communion service and not a governing body,” reaffirming its ecumenical scope. [Image at right]

Locally, bishops designate “diocesan delegates” in their dioceses: priests, deacons, or laypersons whose role is to accompany the Charismatic Renewal groups.

As for the larger communities, the relations of authority within them have given rise to debates and analyses (Plet 1990).


Ultimately, two challenges seem to be facing the CCR and having an impact on its development, if not survival. The first challenge concerns its denominational positioning. From its origin to the present day, the CCR has been navigating between Protestant waters on one side and Catholic waters on the other. It has borrowed from the former (Pentecostalism) the elements that give it its originality and ensure its dynamism, and at the same time it has kept its place within the latter (Catholicism), thus ensuring its durability. This tension between the two denominational worlds (Protestantism and Catholicism) largely overlaps with the tension between charisma and institution which has classically been brought to light in the sociology of religions.

The second challenge relates to its sociographic make-up. In Europe the middle and upper classes have deserted the diocesan prayer groups which, conversely, have increasingly been welcoming members from migrant and diaspora backgrounds. As for new communities, they attract the upper classes with a strong “traditional” sensibility. Generally speaking, Western interest in the CCR has been declining. This evolution is in line with a major trend in contemporary Catholicism which has seen its growth in emerging countries gather pace, while a decline can be observed in the West.

Several important observations may be made concerning the sociocultural profile of the members of the Catholic charismatic movement:

According to Jacques Zylberberg and Pauline Côté, the charismatic movement in Quebec attracted a largely female, middle-aged, single population at first. They further noted the crucial role played by monks and nuns within the movement, as well as the prevalence of the middle classes and the primacy of cultural rationales over economic ones (Côté and Zylberberg 1990:82). In the United States, the Charismatic Renewal primarily involved white urban middle-class individuals (McGuire 1982). It should be stressed that, according to Bernard Ugeux, the Renewal was born in North America at the same time and in the same sociocultural environment as a number of new religious movements that were later identified with the New Age. In France, at first the Charismatic Renewal reached people from extremely varied social backgrounds and in particular two opposite population groups: the middle and upper strata, and the marginalized (the homeless, psychiatric patients, backpackers, former drug addicts, conscientious objectors). Most of the Renewal leaders, however, were from the upper and middle classes.

Over time the type of population joining the Renewal has changed. Nowadays migrants from Latin America and Haiti are strongly involved in the charismatic movement in Quebec (Boucher 2021) and the United States (Pérez 2015:196). In France, migrants from Creole and African societies as well as the lower strata are increasingly present in prayer groups alongside the middle classes. The Renewal has virtually disappeared from the rural world and the upper strata dominate the larger charismatic communities (Emmanuel and Chemin Neuf). The history of the Charismatic Renewal in the Mascarene Islands (Mauritius, Réunion) [Image at right] shows a very similar evolution: the “white” middle class who started the charismatic movement is now virtually absent from the Renewal groups, with the latter recruiting most of their members from the African and Malagasy Creoles who come from much more disadvantaged social backgrounds (Aubourg 2014a). In Africa and Latin America, the Charismatic Renewal is present in the same social circles as Pentecostalism; it involves the middle class but above all simple ordinary people.

Do members of the Charismatic Renewal represent a traditionalist and politically conservative current within the Church? In the United States the answer to this question is generally yes. The charismatic movement saw its ranks grow, for example, with the arrival of Nicaraguan refugees, who opposed to the Sandinista regime, and Lebanese, who held traditionalist views on marital and sexual morality. As for the founders of The Word of God community, they were far from belonging to the hippie movement. In France, the answer to this question is more nuanced as there is greater heterogeneity (Champion and Cohen 1993; Pina 2001:30). Most community founders subscribed to the ideals of May 1968 (aspiring to self-management, non-violence, denouncing the consumer society) and the choices made by Vatican II (valuing the laity, ecumenism, fairly non-hierarchical organization). On the other hand, communities developed which strongly defended traditional Catholic positions on sexual and family morality, distancing themselves from Protestantism, whose members’ political voting leaned to the right. The Emmanuel community is an example of this (Itzhak 2014). As for the autonomous prayer groups, their main characteristic is a lack of political involvement. Like first-wave Pentecostals, these charismatic Catholics favor prayer over engaging in “the world,”


Image #1: France, prayer group, 2019.
Image #2: Rome, first charismatic international gathering, 1975,
Image #3: Paul VI with Ralph Martin, Steve Clark and  Renewal Leaders, 1973.
Image #4: CHARIS, 2020.


Aubourg Valérie. 2020,  Réveil catholique. Emprunts évangéliques dans le catholicisme, Genève, Labor et Fides

Aubourg Valérie. 2014a. Christianismes charismatiques à l’Ile de La Réunion. Paris: Karthala.

Aubourg Valérie. 2014b. “Chant céleste: la glossolalie en milieu pentecôtiste charismatique à l’île de La Réunion”,  Anthropologie et Sociétés 38:245-64.

Barrett, David et Todd M. Johnson. 2006. “Le Renouveau charismatique catholique, 1959-2025.” Pp. 163-78 in: “Et Pierre se leva…”, Nouan-le-Fuzelier, Éd. des Béatitudes, edited by Oreste Pesare,

Bouchard, Melissa.  2010. “Les relations entre catholiques et hindous chez les Tamouls sri lankais à Montréal et la notion de syncrétisme: l’exemple des pèlerinages et de la dévotion mariale.” Mémoire de Master en anthropologie, Université de Montréal.

Boucher, Guillaume. 2021. “Transcendance transnationale : étude comparée de congrégations catholiques charismatiques latino-américaine et québécoise à Montréal. Pp. 211-24 in Aubourg V., Meintel D., et Servais O. (dir.), Ethnographies du catholicisme contemporain. Paris, Karthala.

Champion, Françoise et Martine Cohen. 1993. “Recompositions, décompositions: Le Renouveau charismatique et la nébuleuse mystique-ésotérique depuis les années soixante-dix. Le Débat 75:77-85.

Charuty, Giordana. 1990. “Les liturgies du malheur. Le souci thérapeutique des chrétiens charismatiques.” Le Débat 59:68-89.

Cohen, Martine. 2002. “Le renouveau charismatique catholique: des hippies, mais aussi des traditionnels.” Pp. 69-74 in Le renouveau religieux, de la quête de soi au fanatisme. A. Houziaux (dir.), Paris.

Côté, Pauline et  Jacques Zylberberg. 1990. “Univers catholique romain, charisme et individualisme: les tribulations du renouveau charismatique canadien francophone.” Sociologie et Sociétés 22:81-94.

Dolbeau, Samuel. 2019. “Le rapport de la Communauté de l’Emmanuel avec ses paroisses parisiennes. S’accommoder sans se diluer, se spécifier sans s’isoler.” Émulations – Revue de sciences sociales, En ligne.

Csordas, Thomas J. 2012. Language, Charisma, & Creativity. Ritual Life in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. New York: Palgrave.

Csordas Thomas, 1983, “The Rhetoric of transformation in Ritual Healing.” Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry 7: 333-75.

de Certeau,  Michel. 1976. “Le mouvement charismatique: nouvelle pentecôte ou nouvelle aliénation.” La Lettre 211:7-18.

Hebga, Meinrad. 1995. “Le mouvement charismatique en Afrique.” Etudes 383:67-75.

Hoenes del Pinal, Eric. 2017. “The Paradox of Charismatic Catholicim. Rupture and Continuity in a Q’eqchi’-Maya Parish.” Pp. 170-83 in The anthropology of Catholicism, edited by K. Norget, V. Napolitano and M. Mayblin.  Berkeley: University of California Press.

Itzhac Nofit, 2014, “Freedom to Love? Moral Sentiments and the Catholic Response to Gay Marriage in France.” Conference of the Association for Social Anthropologists of the UK (ASA) in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Fabian, Johannes. 2015. Talk about Prayer. An Ethnographic Commentary. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

La Barbe, Frank. 2007. “Un ethnologue au Cours Alpha. Evangélisation et cure d’âme en milieu charismatique – Un exemple montpelliérain.” PentecoStudies 6:150-87.

Lado, Ludovic. 2017, “Experiments of Inculturation in a Catholic Charismatic Movement in Cameroun.” Pp. 227-42 in The anthropology of Catholicism, edited by K. Norget, and V. Napolitan. Berkeley: University of California Press..

Landron, Olivier. 2004. Les communautés nouvelles: nouveaux visages du catholicisme français. Paris: Cerf.

Masse, Raymond. 2014. “Inculturation et catholicisme créole à la Martinique.” Pp. 131-48 in Mobilité religieuse. Retours croisés des Afriques aux Amériques, edited by P. Chanson, Y. Droz, Y. Gez, and E. Soares. Paris: Karthala.

McGuire, Meredith. 1982. Pentecostal Catholics ; Power, Charisma, and Order in a Religious Movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

McGuire Meredith. 1977.  “The Social Context of Prophecy: Word Gifts of the Spirit among Catholic Pentecostals.” Review of Religious Research 18:134-47.

O’Connor, Edward Denis. 1975. Le Renouveau Charismatique. Origines et Perspectives. Paris: Beauchesne.

Parasie, Sylvain. 2005. “Rendre présent l’Esprit-Saint. Ethnographie d’une prière charismatique.” Ethnologie française XXXV:347-54.

Perez, Salim Tobias. 2015. Religion, Immigration et intégration aux Etats-Unis. Une communauté hispanique à New-York. Paris: L’Harmattan.

Pina, Christine. 2001. Voyage au pays des charismatiques. Paris: Les Editions de l’Atelier.

Plet, Philippe. 1990. “L’autorité dans le mouvement charismatique contemporain.” Thèse de sociologie, Université Paris 4.

Rigou-Chemin, Bénédicte. 2011. “Les virtuoses religieux en paroisse. Une ethnographie du catholicisme en acte.” Thèse de doctorat en anthropologie, EHESS.

Sagne, Jean-Claude. 1994. “Le ministère d’exorciste.” Pp. 121-23 in Le Défi magique, Volume 2, Satanisme et sorcellerie. Lyon: CREA.

Séguy, Jean. 1979. “La protestation implicite. Groupes et communautés charismatiques.” Archives de sciences sociales des religions 48:187-212.

Stout, Anna et Simon Dein. 2013. “Alpha and evangelical conversion.” Journal of Beliefs & Values 34:256-61.

Ugeux, Bernard. 2002. “À propos de l’évolution de la conception du miracle de guérison dans le catholicisme au XXe siècle.” Pp. 23-40 in Convocations thérapeutiques du sacré, edited by J. Benoist et R. Massé. Paris: Karthala..

Velduizen, Evert. 1995. Le Renouveau charismatique protestant en France (1968-1988). Lille: Atelier National de la Reproduction des Thèses.

Vetö, Miklos. 2012. “Le Renouveau charismatique dans l’Église Catholique.” Les cahiers psychologie politique [En ligne] Janvier 20. Accessed from on 23 December 2017.

Publication Date:
3 March 2021